This research study investigates the nature and effectiveness of strategies in promoting teacher wellbeing via teacher education and policy reform around the world. Thus, this research has two objectives. The first is to develop and test a unifying wellbeing framework that contextualises the plethora of current educator and general wellbeing theories and frameworks. This unifying framework will be used as the basis for the required coding and thematic analyses of approaches toward promoting teacher wellbeing. The second purpose of this paper is to identify the different strategies and policy reforms targeting teacher wellbeing; determine what strategies effectively promote teacher wellbeing; and determine whether (or where) teacher wellbeing is being holistically supported. The unifying framework will be tested using survey responses from two samples, one reflecting a general population within the USA consisting of 1,524 adults, and one reflecting the occupational setting of 228 early childhood educators across New Zealand (this proportion of the study has been completed). Based on this framework, an international quantitative research synthesis, with meta analyses being conducted where feasible, of the impact identified teacher wellbeing interventions have on supporting teacher wellbeing in primary and secondary schools will be conducted. Drawing from three international databases (Scopus, EBSCOHOST, APA PsychInfo) yielded a total of 1,190 texts. 794 of these were removed during preliminary as they did not meet our predetermined criteria, leaving 396 texts for full text review.

Internationally nations are facing crisis level teacher shortages (Viac & Fraser, 2020). Teacher burnout is rampant, attrition is rising, and job satisfaction is in decline (Viac & Fraser, 2020). Yet this issue is not new, with above average levels of burnout and challenges facing the wellbeing of teachers being well documented for decades (Zee & Kooman, 2018). Indeed, in the wake of COVID19, a global shift is occurring, with more governments recognising the significance of mental health. Some examples include the Victorian government introducing workplace laws placing mental health hazard reduction requirements on par with physical hazards (Victoria State Government, 2021), and the Education staff wellbeing charter in the UK (Department for Education, 2021). With the velocity by which environments and practices can change, however, is a reactive, rather than proactive, approach to mental health going to successfully address these ever increasing, decades lasting crises facing our educators? A strengths based approach, informed by positive psychology, is becoming increasingly common in how we educate and care for our students. Yet such an approach appears rare when fostering educator health and wellbeing. Should we not ensure educators are equipped with the skills to allow them to thrive and be more resilient to adverse or ‘black swan’ events?

Lack of consensus, however, exists regarding how best to support teacher wellbeing. Within the last decade, for example, numerous different frameworks, and identification of indicators of teacher wellbeing have been published (e.g., Stoloff, Boulanger, Lavallee, & Glaude-Roy, 2020; Viac & Fraser, 2020; Beltman, Hascher, & Mansfield, 2022; Uusiautti et al., 2014; Brady & Wilson, 2021; Hobson & Maxwell, 2017). Thus, without a consistent approach or understanding, we surely cannot expect policy makers to effectively promote teacher wellbeing.

We first present a unifying Tripartite Theory of Wellbeing. Drawing inspiration from Plato’s conception of Phronesis, we propose “Phronetic” as a third wellbeing component alongside Eudaimonic and Hedonic conceptualisations. Using the wellbeing indicators from the WB-Profile (Marsh et al., 2020), we psychometrically compare this tripartite and higher order factor model alongside one and two factor models reflecting current wellbeing conceptualisations, using a US general population sample (N = 1,524) and a New Zealand Early Childhood Educator sample (N = 228). The tripartite model yielded the best psychometric qualities with both populations. We then tested the impact of three wellbeing components, and the higher order factor, on basic psychological needs, and workplace specific outcomes. With this framework confirmed, we determine whether such a model can successfully incorporate all the teacher wellbeing indicators represented in the numerous teacher wellbeing frameworks aforementioned. Indeed all indicators across the varied teacher wellbeing frameworks fit well within the Tripartite Wellbeing Model (i.e., aligned to the three higher order wellbeing factors), thus indicating an appropriate guide for identifying, coding, and synthesising teacher wellbeing literature. Adhering to the Campbell Collaboration systematic review research synthesis guidelines (Shlonsky et al. 2011), we will conduct an international quantitative research synthesis on the impact teacher wellbeing interventions, and education reform targeting wellbeing, have on supporting teacher wellbeing in primary and secondary schools. The aforementioned wellbeing framework will guide the syntax/inclusion criteria used for initial text searches on three international databases (Scopus, EBSCOHOST, APA PsychInfo). Using Covidence, three coders will conduct the preliminary abstract screening, and consequent full text review. Forwards and backwards referencing (Hinde & Spackman, 2015) will then be conducted to identify other relevant texts not identified in the initial database searches. Data from the texts will be extracted, including demographic information (e.g., location, sample size, school type) the strateg(ies) being adopted, the wellbeing component(s) being targeted, and the consequent impact on the wellbeing component on primary and secondary teachers (e.g., effect size, significance). The quality of each text will also be assessed (e.g., internal validity, risk of bias) Using the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool (Dreier, 2013). Inter-rater reliability will be progressively calculated using Krippendorff Alpha Coefficient (Hughes, 2021) for all screening and coding procedures. The identified wellbeing strategies will be thematically coded and assigned a group based on their specific nature. Meta analyses will be conducted to determine the impact of the different strategies on the different wellbeing components.

General wellbeing theories indicate that wellbeing is multi-dimensional (e.g., Marsh et al., 2020) and specific indicators associated with wellbeing belong to overarching higher order factors (Deci & Ryan, 2008). One must be supported in all wellbeing factors in order to thrive, or “optimally function”. Thus, to ensure teachers are supported, strategies must holistically support all higher order wellbeing factors. Identifying these factors is therefore vital to determine whether current approaches are effective, and how we design our strategies to ensure sustainable teacher wellbeing promotion. We expect our study will provide a holistic guide towards the measurement and promotion of holistic teacher wellbeing by developing a framework that encompasses major teacher and general wellbeing frameworks. Our research synthesis and meta analyses will: identify the current international policy and intervention strategies in promoting teacher wellbeing; ascertain whether/what current strategies holistically support teacher wellbeing, or what specific components are being emphasised and neglected; identify the strategies that materially affect teacher wellbeing; and gain insight the most effective approaches towards promoting holistic teacher wellbeing that are both context specific (e.g., specific demographic) and universally applicable. Such information is crucial for progressing our understanding in best supporting our teachers. Our findings will provide guidance to policy makers internationally with regards to best practice in wellbeing promotion. Our developed framework will allow schools and teachers themselves to ascertain the extent their wellbeing is holistically supported, and identify areas of support for specific wellbeing components lacking and amend their practices accordingly. With a holistic framework of teacher wellbeing, international researchers would be in a better position to collaborate, align and consequently progress our understanding of teacher wellbeing.

Beltman, S., Hascher, T., & Mansfield, C. (2022). In the midst of a pandemic: Australian teachers talk about their well-being. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 230(3), 253. Brady, J., & Wilson, E. (2021). Teacher wellbeing in England: Teacher responses to school-level initiatives. Cambridge Journal of Education, 51(1), 45-63. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2008). Hedonia, eudaimonia, and well-being: An introduction. Journal of happiness studies, 9(1), 1-11.Department for Education. (2021) Education staff wellbeing charter https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1034032/DfE_Education_Workforce_Welbeing_Charter_Nov21.pdf Dreier, M. (2013). Quality Assessment in Meta-analysis. In: Doi, S., Williams, G. (eds) Methods of Clinical Epidemiology. Springer Series on Epidemiology and Public Health. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-37131-8_13 Hinde, S., & Spackman, E. (2015). Bidirectional citation searching to completion: an exploration of literature searching methods. Pharmacoeconomics, 33, 5-11. Hobson, A. J., & Maxwell, B. (2017). Supporting and inhibiting the well‐being of early career secondary school teachers: Extending self‐determination theory. British Educational Research Journal, 43(1), 168-191. Hughes, J. (2021). krippendorffsalpha: An R package for measuring agreement using Krippendorff's alpha coefficient. arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.12170. Marsh, H. W., Huppert, F. A., Donald, J. N., Horwood, M. S., & Sahdra, B. K. (2020). The well-being profile (WB-Pro): Creating a theoretically based multidimensional measure of well-being to advance theory, research, policy, and practice. Psychological Assessment, 32(3), 294–313. Shlonsky, A., Noonan, E., Littell, J. H., & Montgomery, P. (2011). The role of systematic reviews and the Campbell Collaboration in the realization of evidence-informed practice. Clinical Social Work Journal, 39, 362-368. Stoloff, S., Boulanger, M., Lavallée, É., & Glaude-Roy, J. (2020). Teachers' Indicators Used to Describe Professional Well-Being. Journal of education and learning, 9(1), 16-29. Uusiautti, S., Harjula, S., Pennanen, T., & Määttä, K. (2014). Novice teachers’ well-being at work. Journal of Educational and Social Research, 4(3), 177. Viac, C., & Fraser, P. (2020). Teachers’ well-being: A framework for data collection and analysis. OECD. Victoria State Government. 2021, May 14. Keeping Workers Safe From Psychological Harm. https://www.premier.vic.gov.au/keeping-workers-safe-psychological-harm Zee, M., & Koomen, H. M. (2016). Teacher self-efficacy and its effects on classroom processes, student academic adjustment, and teacher well-being: A synthesis of 40 years of research. Review of Educational research, 86(4), 981-1015.